me_irl
2d 6h ago by lemmy.today/u/sanitation in me_irl from lemmy.today
Also, I don't think that is why we aren't attacking Russia.
Agent Krasnov
In the world of nuclear weapons, there's a big difference between "I have nuclear weapons," and "I will be able to get nuclear weapons soon."
Also a big difference between "I might have one or two nuclear weapons, but I don't have any way to get them anywhere that might threaten you" (i.e. North Korea) and "I am a former nuclear superpower and have probably accidentally lost more nuclear weapons than most countries have ever developed, oh, and I have ICBMs, MLRS systems, submarines designed to launch ICBMs, etc." (i.e. Russia).
There's a lot of doubt whether Russia could actually launch an ICBM and have it hit the US. Even at the peak of the cold war there was some doubt. But, now, decades later, the corruption and neglect might mean they are no longer capable. Still, even if there's a 1% chance they could launch a nuclear-tipped ICBM that has to be part of your calculation.
I don't break bad, but I think this isn't the correct format (isn't the last image "You're goddamn right"?)
You're goddamn right
Captions work for the image though
Where did you get these top secret recordings of the White House conversations?
Just open the group chat
This is all basically public. We attacked Iran over nukes, that's the official excuse they landed on after Israel ordered us in.
The whole reason they have given to be cautious with Ukraine is Russia's nukes.
To prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. I get America-bad or whatever, but even the IAEA has made many statements that Iran has not been compliant for years, is fabricating and outright omitting data, does not permit previously agreed upon inspections, and is stockpiling materials to make nuclear bombs.
Now, is that really the reason we got involve? Israel struck first. So probably not. But it is definitely a reason, and a valid one at that. Any way one slices it, a fundamentalist religious state should never be allowed to have nuclear weapons. The world is bad enough as it is with the fundamentalist religious who do have them already.
Iran has been "one week away from nuclear weapons" for 30 years. They should write a children's book about it, "the fascist ethnostate who cried nuke".
Not compliant with what...? The deal to comply with was scrapped by the US in 2018.
*Trump
not the US. even Iran can make the distinction, so can you.
Who is he president of again?
I don't think the Brits have any ground to stand on when it comes to upholding agreements... do I hold it against all of Brittan? no, I call out the leader that was responsible at the time. why? just because your leader did the thing doesn't damn the whole country.
I don't see the issue with offhand referring to agreements between nations, by using the titles of the nations involved. Whether the US likes it or not, the US did pull out of that agreement.
To be clear, when Starmer runs around doing his latest shit thing that he does... I don't rush to correct people who say that Britain is doing shit things. What he's doing represents me, whether I like it or not.
"Brittan" O.o
you know...the Brittney Isle's!
My personal hot take: the middle east will be much more peaceful when Iran has nuclear weapons.
I trust them more than Israel with them. I also would say that Israel is a fundamentalist religious state with nuclear weapons, hell so is Pakistan and I'd go so far as to say what has kept the conflict between Pakistan and India from exploding into even worse violence and outright war is that they both have nukes.
After this debacle I would be surprised if Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons in a decade or less.
...what do you do for work, OP?
Where's the me_irl?
If we actually attacked Iran because of nuclear weapons we would have left a long time ago.
Wait until you tell them the US has nukes.